Thorsten Glaser <t...@mirbsd.de> wrote:
>>There seems to be no point of jupp sharing the editorrc alternative
>>with joe, especially considering that neither program is compatible
>>with the shipped rc files of the other anymore.
>
> The problem is that joe/jupp use argv[0] + "rc" as name to look
> for, so it’s editorrc for both of them.
Yes, I am aware of it, but the point is that a combination like joe
selected as the alternative for editor, and /etc/jupp/jupprc for
editorrc (or the other way around) won't work.
>>Apparently, at the moment, jupp uses only one alternative for
>>/etc/jupp/editorrc. Do you plan to include the rc files from joe-jupp
>>as alternatives as well?
>
> They are already included, joe-jupp contains its own maintainer
> scripts enabling them.
Sorry, I checked in the wrong place.
>>If so, the correct fix is to use an
>>alternative name different from the one used by joe.
>
> But the name must still be editorrc…
No, the alternative name can be different from from the name of the
file referring to it.
> (which, by the way, could be a slave to editor, couldn’t it?)
According to the changelog entry for joe 3.5-1, sadly not:
* Stop shipping fixed /etc/joe/editorrc and instead add all our
versions as alternatives to it. Unfortunately it doesn't work as a
slave alternative to the main editor alternative, but this is as
close as it can get, closes: #269334.
(Unless, perhaps, update-alternatives changed in the meantime?)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
